Saturday, December 31, 2005

Patrick Basham of the CATO institute had a piece recently in the Washington Times that examines the politics of anti-Americanism in Canada.

Speaking of the Liberal Party, Basham writes:

“The party's only hope is to cast itself as Mother Canada, protecting her vulnerable and insecure children huddled for warmth along the American border. Which makes one wonder what ever happened to Liberal Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier's 1904 forecast that, `The 20th century shall be the century of Canada.’ Laurier must be turning over in his grave. A century later, his countrymen remain so culturally insecure and politically adolescent that they may once again fall prey to such crass politicking. Canadians need to grow up. And they need to do so quickly.”

Basham’s point is essentially that anti-Americanism actually undermines Canada’s own national self-interest.

“Canadians need to get over themselves. They need to accept the asymmetry of the U.S.-Canada relationship, one deeply beneficial to both countries. Rewarding their political leaders' anti-American prejudices is an immature response. A mature electorate, with the worldliness and self-confidence that Laurier foresaw, would appreciate that anti-Americanism is really anti-Canadian, for it hurts Canada most of all.”

Thursday, December 29, 2005

The recent outrage generated by a couple of Liberal blogs, see here and here, have rattled me a bit.

I mean, if even Liberals can’t live up to the ideals of Political Correctness what chance do the rest of us unenlightened non-Liberals have?

With that in mind, I have come up with a guide for bloggers to keep them out of trouble in these dangerous times.

Here it is:

1. Never use humour on your blog. Especially stay away from any kind of satire, as this could be construed as offensive to the PC police who have had their funny bones surgically removed.

2. Never make any comments about any person of a different gender, ethnic group, sexual orientation, religious background. Although please note that insulting Christians, WASPs, or conservatives is not only acceptable but actually encouraged.

3. Never call a woman “sexy” on your site as this could be interpreted as either misogynist or sexist. However, it is certainly permissible for female bloggers to call me “sexy” as this will only be interpreted as “charitable”.

4. Never use the defence of “free speech” to defend anything you post on your blog as this strategy is only useful when referring to Supreme Court sanctioned pornography.

5. Or to be really safe shut down your blog and spend your time watching the CBC to help with the necessary PC indoctrination process.

And to anybody out there who wants to report this blog to the authorities, rest assured I am in no way being satirical.

American economist Walter E. Williams has an excellent column entitled “Do we deserve it?” which argues that small infringements on our individual freedoms often lead to larger infringements later on.

Williams notes two examples: the attack on religion and the attack on smoking.

The attack on religion in the United States began in 1963 when the Supreme Court banned organized prayer in schools. Who knew at the time that this ruling would eventually lead to calls for the elimination of all Christian symbols or to the banning of Christmas carols from public schools?

The attack on smoking on the other hand, began with demands for no smoking sections on airplanes. That has led to no smoking bans in airports, restaurants, parks and to billion dollar legal suits against tobacco companies.

Here in Canada we will likely see the same thing with election gag laws. This law began as an attack on the right on non-political parties to participate in elections.

According to a story in today’s Globe and Mail, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper has adopted a “turn the other cheek” approach to Liberal smear attacks.

“For the time being at least,” says the article “the Conservative strategy of ignoring harsh personal attacks and refraining from making them in return while instead peppering the country with ideas, looks to be set in stone.”

In my view it’s a dubious strategy.

One of the reasons the Tories fell short in the last election was that they failed to effectively respond to Liberal attacks ads.

Politics is a blood sport, and sometimes you got to fight fire with fire. Otherwise you will get burned.

I pontificate further on this in a column I wrote for the Vancouver Sun last spring.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

The Supreme Court of Canada announced today that it will hear Paul Bryan’s challenge to an archaic and undemocratic law – a law which all bloggers need to know about.

I am talking about Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, which bans the “premature transmission” of voting results on election night. That means it’s illegal for somebody to post election results from a region of the country where the polls are closed to a region where they are still open.

Bryan challenged this law back in 2000 because he thought it was an infringement on his right to free speech.

What he did was post real time voting results from Atlantic Canada on his website in British Columbia.

The next day Elections Canada dispatched Speech Police to his home and seized his computer.

He was later charged.

But Paul fought back. With the support of the National Citizens Coalition, Paul challenged the law in court. In 2003 the BC Supreme Court overturned the law, but earlier this year the Court of Appeals reinstated it.

That means if any blogger in Eastern or Central Canada posts election results which can be accessed on the West Coast, you will be violating the law and could be charged.

Of course, such a law is not only undemocratic; it’s unenforceable. Look how long the ban on the Gomery testimony lasted.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

“Last year, Svend Robinson’s lawyer, Clayton Ruby, explained that his client’s theft of a $21,500 ring was, in essence, a `cry for help’. Ruby’s arguments were successful and his client got off with a conditional discharge. Now Robinson is back, once again seeking a seat in the House of Commons. It’s our turn to cry for help.”

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Paul Tuns, a Canadian conservative writer, has an excellent article in Comment that examines some of the reasons why Canadian social conservatives have not been as successful politically as their cousins in the United States.

He essentially boils it down to three main reasons:1) the lack of conservative infrastructure such as foundations, think tanks, and publications;

2) the failure to organize and become part of a larger conservative coalition;

3) Charter-era politics.

Tuns makes the case that the same-sex marriage debate may help galvanize social conservatives to help offset points one and two, but the increasing supremacy of the courts makes it difficult to debate moral issues in the political arena.

“Liberal sources say that the proposed ban, to be announced by Martin in Toronto, will be sweeping – only police and select security officers would be allowed to carry handguns.” (italics added)

It seems to me that a “total” ban on handguns would also include the police, security officers and heck even the army.

So when you come down to it, Martin is only offering a partial ban on handguns.

But why not a total ban? Why exempt the police? Why should they enjoy a special exemption denied to the rest of the citizenry? Aren’t all Canadians supposed to be equal before the law?

Of course, Martin’s supporters might say cops need to be armed in case they run into some pistol packing crook.

But doesn’t that argument undermine the whole premise of the handgun ban? I mean if a ban on handguns doesn’t make the police feel safe enough to patrol our streets unarmed, why are the rest of us supposed to feel safer?

By exempting the police Martin is essentially acknowledging that his gun ban won’t disarm criminals. It’s a policy that just won’t work.

And by that I mean it won’t work when it comes to stopping crime, but it might work when it comes to winning votes – which is all that matters to the Liberals.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Leo-Paul Lauzon, an NDP candidate in Quebec, recently praised Cuban communist dictator Fidel Castro and says the Canadian government should nationalize Air Canada, CN Rail, and the oil and gas industry.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

To protest the federal election gag law, the National Citizens Coalition has put up an unusual billboard in downtown Toronto.The billboard doesn’t have a catchy slogan, or an election message, or any words at all.

It simply features the stark image of a man with tape across his mouth.

Our billboard symbolizes our loss of free election speech. The gag law stifles free election speech. It undermines democracy. It prevents us from effectively participating in the election debate currently raging across the country.”

The election gag law, which was enacted in 2000, imposes severe restrictions on how much money non-politicians can spend on election advertising.

Under the gag law only politicians and political parties have the right to effectively and freely speak out during elections. Everybody else has to keep quiet. We think that’s wrong. We think everyone should be free to participate in the election process.

The gag law prevents important issues from being discussed and debated. Groups on all sides of the political spectrum will be silenced.

The only items on the election agenda will be those items the politicians want to discuss. That’s bad for democracy.

Convicted killer Karla Homolka is a totally free woman today; she’s free to travel around the country, free to associate with children and free to contact her ex-husband and fellow monster Paul Bernardo.

Isn’t that a comforting thought?

And we have a Quebec Judge, Justice James Brunton, to thank for this state of affairs.

Brunton yesterday removed all the restrictions imposed on Homolka last June when she was officially released from prison.

“The possibility that (Homolka) might reoffend one day cannot be completely eliminated,” he wrote in his ruling, “However . . . on balance of probabilities . . . this is unlikely to occur. She does not represent a real and imminent danger. . .”

Interesting.

Even though Homolka is a depraved, psychotic, cold-blooded child-killer, Brunton says she is no “real threat”.

Well if that’s the case, Brunton shouldn’t be afraid to walk the walk.

I propose he voluntarily take his little angel Karla into his home for the next year or so, just to show us how confident he is in his judgment.

What’s more, he should put Karla in charge of babysitting his kids. After all, on the “balance of probabilities” she won’t murder them.

Only when Brunton takes up my suggestion, will I buy his argument, otherwise I’d advise all Canadians to beware: a wolf has just been let loose among the sheep.

About Me

Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and writer who has been called a “political warrior” a “brilliant strategist” and one of the “canniest political observers in Canada.”
He has worked as a consultant in both the United States and Canada and was formerly a senior officer in the National Citizens Coalition.
A regular columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times, his work has also appeared in the Globe and Mail, the National Post and in the Sun Media chain; and he has appeared on countless TV and radio public affairs programs. He is the author of the book, Loyal to the Core, Harper, Me and the NCC.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

Reviews for Loyal to the Core

“Loyal to the Core is a daring and provocative work. It deserves to be read by conservative activists and politicos.” – Western Standard

“This is a very important book.” -- Michael Coren, TV host

“A fascinating read” --- Seamus O'Regan, Canada AM

“I really enjoyed Loyal to the Core. It’s a great book”, - Charles Adler, radio host.

"Loyal to the Core should be required reading for anyone considering or starting a career at a conservative think tank or in electoral politics in general …Consider Loyal to the Core a cautionary tale that’s also a funny, easy read – with a few highly “stealable” ideas for media campaigns thrown in for good measure.”- Kathy Shaidle, author Tyranny of Nice

“Every Canadian remotely interested in politics and the state of the country should have a read of Loyal to the Core. – blogger Wendy Sullivan

"It’s rare to find a politico, however, who is equally passionate about policy and strategy, but columnist, pundit, author and Western Standard blogger Gerry Nicholls is such a person." Matthew Johnson, owner Western Standard

"If you are a conservative who wonders how conservatives can communicate their message in a hostile media climate, Loyal to the Core is a must read." -- At Home in Hespeler